User talk:Dricherby

my favorite edit summary of the day

[1] --barneca (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on the Canon EF 50mm lens talk page

If you are knowledgable about camera equipment, there are a lot of articles that really need a lot of work! Thanks for the help. Good work elsewhere too, I see. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trespass

If you do not like the tone of the article, you can of course edit it. The rest of us (who are watching the article) will judge whether it is a good edit, and change it further or revert as appropriate. Please add not comments at the foot of the page, not the top. If starting a new subject, click the "+" at the top, which dies this authomatically. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Police Memorial

I've reverted your edit to National Police Memorial; the wording on the roll of honour is not "in the line of duty", but "in the execution of their duty". (The full text is "Police Officers of the United Kingdom Who have Lost their Lives In the Execution of their Duty As the result of Criminal Acts or In the Course of Effecting an Arrest or In the Performance of Acts of Gallantry or Other Hazardous Duty", but that's obviously too long for the infobox.) "Line of duty" and "Execution of duty" don't mean the same thing in this context; the memorial specifically does not commemorate officers killed in training accidents, road traffic accidents etc. — iridescent 22:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The phrasing seems rather unfortunate to me, which is why I changed it. I think that "Line of duty" and "Execution of duty" do mean exactly the same thing; the reason that, say traffic accidents don't count because the quote you give specifically states "as the result of criminal acts". Either way, the article should use the same phrasing as the roll of honour so I fully agree with your revert. If you have a cite for that quote, I think you should add it to the article; I agree that it's too long for the infobox. Dricherby (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the exact wording, together with the specific definitions of "in the execution of their duties" that they're using. As it's already cited-to-death where the definition is discussed (in the "Criticism" section), I don't see any particular reason to clutter the infobox with yet another citation; the website's already cited repeatedly in the article, so anyone ref-checking will reach it anyway. — iridescent 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, instead of adding loads of {{fact}}s to an article such as here could you please use a template such as {{refimprove}} or {{refimprove-section}}? Having lots of ^{[citation needed]} tags makes it really difficult to read an article. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superfund

Thanks for your hard work on the superfund sites you recently edited. I know how tedious it can be entering data line after line, so I appreciate your edits. I especially like how you noticed that the maps have yellow for proposed and green for deleted, and added that to the tables. I just wish I knew how to create more of the maps for each page. I had one question for you. Do you think that the recent edit I did on the List of Superfund sites in Kansas is better than blanking the N/As? I only ask since it sort of serves as a placeholder showing that it was checked, and found to be null. In other words, it shows that the date isn't just lacking, but it does not exist. Let me know what you think, I'll look for a response here or the talk page for the Kansas sites. Cmcnicoll (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Yes, I agree that the dashes are better than blanking. I blanked them because "N/A" is rather "visually heavy" and make the columns hard to scan but I'll use dashes in future. I'm afraid I've no idea how to do maps, either. Dricherby (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the N/As looked bad. I asked skew-t to create more maps when time permits, since that is who made the other ones. I had started paring down the "see also" links to just 4 since there seemed to be too many, some of which were quite unrelated. Since you seem to be interested in the topic, what do you think of merging List of Superfund sites in the United States into Superfund as a section? I only recently thought of it due to this peer-review comment. Cmcnicoll (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems like a good idea, since List of Superfund sites in the United States is really a list of the fifty states, rather than the 1,300-odd sites.

In other news, I've noticed something of an inconsistency. The list of Superfund sites in Nevada included a non-NPL site, whereas all the other states I've edited have included only NPL sites in the list. I've commented out the non-NPL site in Nevada and added text after the table referring to it. Do you think that's a good idea or should be include all the non-NPL sites in all the tables? Dricherby (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is one of the several strange things that will pop up from time to time. It is a Superfund site like the link says since it is being remediated through the CERCLA law. However, it is not placed on the NPL, so CERCLA funding isn't used. I am not sure if this specific case is considered a "Superfund Alternative site." If so, then we could do what is done on the List of Superfund sites in South Carolina article. That is why I started adding the "Superfund sites" section to the articles. This differentiates the two. I'll look into it a little. Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, according to this link, the Anaconda Mine is not a Superfund Alternative site. But on the EPA's website, it clearly lists it as a Superfund site, not a brownfield. I think this is why I left it in the table in the first place, since it didn't seem to fit anywhere else. Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The white box for the non-NPL Superfund sites was a good idea. Keeping all the sites in the table looks cleaner. Cmcnicoll (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There's one in Arizona, too! I think it's because Superfund money can be used for time-critical clean-up of non-NPL sites, though it can only be used for long-term clean-up of sites that *are* on the NPL. Dricherby (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the peer review of the Alaska Superfund site list. I requested peer review of this one first before doing the others since it had a map. I was hoping to figure out how to format the lead and everything else correctly, and then model the other lists after it, with the eventual goal of FL status for them all. Cmcnicoll (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finlandia

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia and have noticed that your cleanup of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandia_Vodka was reversed to its initial PR spin. If I can help in any way, please tell how (I can restore but do not know how/where to properly reason the restore and report the intentional PR). Anyway IMO it would be nice(and better) from ya to do that. Thanks. Ihosama (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would love for you to ed my rework of the "Russian Standard Vodka" article. The spin was there, though more professional. Most of the content had some reality embedded and was re-useable. Great xmas! Ihosama (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE My AFD's

Dricherby,

I saw your note. I'm puzzled as to why you would think I'd need extra reasoning behind my AFD's. WP:NOTDIR is policy, very much like WP:BLP is. When a BLP is nominated for deletion nothing else need be said exccept that it's BLP (yeah, I know,it needs to be looked at to be sure it really is BLP :)). Those articles violate NOTDIR in that they're lists, and NOTDIR is policy. When something is against policy, that , in and of itself is reason enough.

I'm not trying to be difficult, rather, I tend to be black and white when it comes to policy. You follow ? KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj... 19:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding WP:NOTDIR. "Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" means that they are not lists of L.A.T.s and they are not repositories of L.A.T.s (not that they are not lists of any kind and they are not repositories of L.A.T.s). It does not mean that lists are forbidden on Wikipedia because the first sentence of WP:NOTDIR is "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject." Note the specific choice of words: "Wikipedia contains many lists..." would be a simple statement of fact; to say that it "encompasses many lists" means explicitly that (some of) these lists are welcome.

The fundamental difference between WP:NOTDIR and WP:BLP is that it is, as you say, usually self-evident that an article is an unsourced biography of a living person. In contrast, some lists are directories and some lists are just lists. Therefore, the nominator of an AfD under WP:NOTDIR needs to explain why the nominated list constitutes a directory: it is not self-evident. Dricherby (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on AfD

Hey! Thanks for your comment. I apologize for overabusing of the AfD process, as i know i've done. I have read the deletion policy and from the 8 articles i nominated yesterday, 4 of them are being voted for deletion. Also, another 5 articles of those i nominated were already considered and deleted. Notwithstanding, i'll take my time to furtherly understand the policy and to double-check the refs before proposing an article for AfD. To answer another little question, i love to patroll articles, that's the reason i nominated such a big amount of articles (i now i made mistakes i've already learned and still have to learn) and lately i've been fixing (and adding references to) them if i find the sources. Finally, i thank you again for your efforts on patrolling my behavior and taking a moment of your time to write me about them I really appreciate it. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[2] I laughed out loud at that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Lines

Thank you for your message. I re-added (in preview mode) a few blank lines between the last paragraph of Retirement and the commented-out section, and they do indeed show up on the page. Is this the intended behavior? Aednichols (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter issue

As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disam pages

Removing a link can be considered fixing a disam page. I generally do it if it's a very common term. So it's not a "mistake". --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 09:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But having said that, I'll go through the links and see if I can specify any of them --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool

Hi. I reverted your recent changes to Liverpool because they replaced data that had a definite source with data that had no source (and, in one case, changed some data while still citing the same source). The changes you made look plausible but they do need to be sourced, especially in the lead section of a major article. On Wikipedia, a key policy is that even true material needs to be verifiable (i.e., backed up by sources) before it can be added. Other Wikipedia pages aren't acceptable sources but if other articles have sources the support the data you added, you can use those sources for the Liverpool article, too. Dricherby (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I linked to the wrong article; I got the numbers from List of cities in the United Kingdom. But it turns out that not only did I count wrong (didn't notice England was listed separately) but the population column there is not included in what references do exist on that page and now I'm doubting whether or not they're current. I've requested more references for the list; what you reverted Liverpool to is probably more accurate! -- Beland (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge-restaurant

Hi Dricherby, Regarding your comments: Ad 1. The title, I have looked for the right term in English before posting the article. The term bridge restaurant is used on the British website www.msatrivia.co.uk. Although you probably could defend Restaurantbridge, analogue to Italian:Ristoro a Ponte, as well. However I didn't invent this word myself.

Ad 2. I'll update the sources regarding the illinois Tollway oases, then it will stand until that website is changed again.

Ad 3. I had the intention to sort it from north to south as already done in other languages, after replacing the decimal coordinates.

Ad 4. I had the intention to create a complete list of bridge-restaurants world-wide. To complete the list I hope users add the ones in their one contries if needed. Complete, we'll never know for sure, because in the future new ones can be built or existing demolished. --JB63 (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft: hyhens vs. dashes

G'day from Oz; one of your edits has come up on my watchlist. I don't really care about hyphens and dashes one way or the other myself (I usually use the "minus" key on the keyboard 'cause it's easier), but I just want to point out that with regard to Boeing airliners the one that started it all, the Boeing 367-80 (the prototype for the 707), was nicknamed the "Dash Eighty"; and the de Havilland Canada DHC-7 and DHC-8 were officially named "Dash 7" and "Dash 8". Does that mean anything? Who knows? "Dash 7" certainly sounds better than "hyphen 7". Anyway, just an observation on my part. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Similarly, the GE Dash 9 Series of railway locomotives but I think all of these are because, as you suggest, "hyphen-eighty" and so on just sounds clumsy. Dashes are appropriate for number ranges (e.g., "pages 10–15") but none of these things is a number range so a hyphen is just fine. Boeing's website uses hyphens (but, heck, they even use hyphen-hyphen instead of a dash so maybe we should discount them :-) ). Dricherby (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited GWR 3031 Class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology

Dear Dricherby,

I see you've reverted my edit. In my opinion, the following is a tautology:

Russia is a federation which consists of 83 federal subjects. They are also known as the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

If a federation consists of subjects, then surely the subjects are its constituent entities, by definition of the word constituent? Qwertyus (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "constituent entity" is an alternative name for these things and many references use that alternative. Do you think it would be clearer with quotes around the words "constituent entities"? Dricherby (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or maybe even boldface. Qwertyus (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- boldface it is! Dricherby (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Airport

Mozambique wasn't listed because it wouldn't be viable, And no im not just listing places you can't fly out of Shannon, The majority of these places were once served with an airline and if you want a reference to this you can go into routeshop.com BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.213.82 (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But all the places that were listed aren't viable, either — or there'd be flights to them! So, er, boom to you too. Dricherby (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asyszygetic

Your underlying point is valid, but I think you missed this comment by User:News annoys mantra to the effect that the article in question, together with all this user's other edits, is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity. This is a reasonably obvious place for a new mathematics editor to start. However, you will have missed it because User:Future Perfect at Sunrise removed it and blocked the author on grounds thatr do not appear to be consistent with the ongoing SPI and which was not reported there. It is quite obvious that the criteria for being accused of being, and blocked as, a sock of Echigo Mole are precisely making edits that Mathsci does not like, neither more nor less. Due process and reasoned argument do not come into it. 94.197.233.84 (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]